Are ‘bias,’ ‘error’ and ‘manipulation’ bad words? Not to scientists.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen a scientific theory (often evolution) derided for being “only a theory.”

It’s easy for scientists to laugh off the person making such an argument as someone who knows nothing about science. But I see this as a teachable moment. And not for the layman.

The thing is scientists often use words that have very different meanings in a public context. Among scientists, the use of “theory” denotes scientific understanding of an issue. The public sees theory and thinks “hunch.”

Neither is wrong, by the way. The problem comes when scientists (and science reporters) use scientific terms to communicate scientific findings to the public. This is when misinterpretation happens.

That’s why I found the table below, from a Physics Today article on science communication, so interesting:

(Physics Today)

Now there’s grist for the mill — to use an unscientific term — for both scientists and non-scientists in the table above. Outside of scientific circles terms like uncertainty, bias and values all have strong connotations. They have very different meanings among scientists.

We must all learn to communicate a little better if we’re to understand this world we live in and make the best possible use of it.

124 Responses

Theory = hunch, speculation= Scientific understanding. Both definitions differ from “fact” in that while they may come from logical conclusions they lack scientific proof. Let’s not forget that “Global Cooling” was a theory in the early 1970’s – OOPS!

Thank you for proving Eric’s point. “Global cooling” was pop culture science, not a seriously considered scientific theory. A scientific theory absolutely is based on evidence from repeatable investigations.

I think you are confusing mathematical ‘theorems’ with scientific ‘theories’.

In mathematics (where I have a degree), you state a theorem and then you provide a proof.

In science (where I am attending graduate school), you state a theory, and then you carry out an experiment and claim that the results from your data support your theory. Typically at this point (for a new theory) an argument in the literature ensues, with other theories presented and conflicting experimental data obtained. This argument endures, until enough experiments have been carried out, and sufficient alternative theories have been discarded, such that only one theory remains that fits all the data. (It is trivially EASY to go read that literature from decades ago chronicling this argument / evidence process for evolution and climate change. It’s not MY fault you haven’t done so.)

Nowhere in the scientific process is there EVER a proof. NEVER. All that is ever found is a preponderance of data and a single theory left standing. When the theory has been accepted for a period of time, and experimental data has continued to confirm it, and students are reproducing those experimental results as exercises in their Freshman labs, it tends to go into the textbooks and become what scientists consider fact.

rsc1911: In science, the idea that a “theory” has no “scientific proof” is precisely the way in which the general public usually misunderstands the word “theory.” In fact, even when an overwhelming amount of supporting scientific evidence is accumulated, the word “theory” is still used. For example, relativity and evolution are both “theories,” but scientific evidence supporting both of them is huge.

So the theory was wrong. That is exactly the point, theories, scientific or otherwise, are not fact.

You aren’t thinking it through. If the theory is wrong because it under-estimates the amount of the effect, then it would be stupid to ignore it because it is “wrong”. To put it in more prosaic terms, if you think that you will spend $50 at the grocery store but past experience has shown that you spend more than that, you would be well advised to bring at least $50 with you the next time you go shopping.

If this theory was wrong, underestimated, it is safe to say that other scientific theories could have similar flaws (under or overestimated) and should not be taken as fact (one would assume that’s why they are still called theories). They should not be ignored, but they should not be elevated to “gospel”, as I believe many do with scientific theories.

Continue to investigate with an open mind. Do not ignore the conclusions you have already reached, but do not etch them in to stone either.

—

@JohnD I enjoy the links you provide in the majority of your posts. Thank you.

I’m sorry; I misunderstood the nature of your objection. You are correct that theories should not be treated as fact, nor as Gospel. Instead, theories should be treated as what they are: the best possible explanation for a given phenomenon and set of facts, given what we currently know.

In science, theories are treated as approximations to reality. The better the theory, the closer it matches reality (and the more it tells us about things we might have otherwise overlooked). You might think of a theory as being equivalent to a tourist’s guide to a phenomenon. The lousy ones send you into crime-ridden areas where the differentials will mug you and take your chalk, whereas the good ones will tell you about undiscovered gems that can win you the Nobel prize.

I know! How about those of us that have made the effort to understand the language of science go RIGHT ON USING IT correctly!? When some ignoramus misunderstands basic science terminology we can bray and laugh and embarrass them.

@Diogenes: Never assume. Some of us would welcome scientific language and are tired of the general public we have to date. Not all scientists (male and female) look and act like The Big Bang Theory. And, even if we did, remember that even Sheldon has a girlfriend. Just another person trying to feel better about themselves when they don’t understand something.

You are quite right; the data may show that a hypothesis was incorrect. It happens fairly often, though negative results are rarely reported (and when they are, they don’t get the same play as positive ones; witness the “FTL neutrino” brouhaha).

Somewhat less often, enough data amasses to overturn a theory. This happened in chemistry in 1783 with the overthrown of phlogiston, in 1905 with the supplement of Newtonian physics by Relativity, and in 1963 with the demise of geosynclinal theory. But it takes a lot of contradictory data to justify replacing an existing theory with a new one and the new theory must explain much more of the data than the previous one did. Thus far, there hasn’t been enough contradictory data to say that anthropogenic climate change is incorrect.

First off, why did you use the word “investigation” twice in the above sentence? That obviously was not whatl you intended to do, but if you write your replies so carelessly it becomes very difficult to carry on an effective discussion with you.

I’m guessing that what you intended was

‘Stanley, the investigation may “not” support the hypothesis.’

That is true, but your saying it makes no meaningful contribution to discussion because I already knew it! I finished my post with “… if the results of the investigation support the hypothesis.” That proves that I already knew it.

Since I already knew it, what was your purpose in saying it? I can only conclude that you are someone who reads and writes without bothering to clearly and precisely understand what you are reading and writing.

The whole point of my simple two-sentence post was to give you the simplest possible explanation of why “hypothesis” and “theory” have different meanings. If you misinterpret such a simple post so badly that I have to do this much writing to give an adequate response, then further discussion is not worth the effort.

The problem is that they continue to hype the theory when proven wrong…

Such as this Lipid theory where saturated fat and cholesterol consumption causes heart disease. Where did they come up with oatmeal being good for you since there isn’t a study that actually proved it. See my point?

That’s why public is skeptic of what they put out there these days…

More and more are becoming aware of Sun Scare that may have made things worse instead of better… wide spread vitamin D deficiency. Nice job folks.

So yeah, evolution is just a theory with gaps.

I found this statement by Lloyd Pye to be true when it comes to trying to prove theory wrong but they refuse to listen to the new evidences. Obviously, we haven’t learned that lesson…

“Luckily for the newly empowered Darwinists, the first creationists to enter the ring against them were the most fundamentally strict, dogma bound scientists and apologists of their generation. By hewing so closely to a literal reading of Biblical scripture, they lost credibility with the public media, who steadily relayed their disillusionment to the public itself. By the time of the do-or-die Scopes Trial in 1925, creationists had methodically positioned themselves as irrelevant to the mood of the times. In the go-go Roaring 20’s, progress was the watchword on all fronts. Evolution had caught the surging wave of modernism, leaving creation stranded on the beach of another era.

Evolutionists coasted along, secure in their dominant position, making the creationist mistake of allowing their theoretical framework to ossify into dogma. As the 20th century neared its end, the theory proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859 had morphed into an intellectual straitjacket with all the outward trappings of a religion. There were tenets of the faith, colleges for its perpetuation, and high priests and cardinals tasked with ensuring that all contrary views were neutralized or, when necessary, eradicated. As with the creationists they overthrew, their feet grew to fill the shoes of oppression.”

You can always tell when someone has never actually DONE science before.

Before I went to college (math/physics) I thought the ivory tower was just another religion. Then I studied things like quantum mechanics and electrodynamics and found out how tightly knit the math and experimental evidence is. I was shocked and then became accustomed to having, as part of the textbook presentation of an accepted theory, the presentation of historical plots of data from seminal papers in the field showing the evidence that helped end the debate and establish the theory as fact.

So much human endeavor is out there, freely available in the library of your local college, and all you have to do is sit down and read it. It’s not even that hard.

But… then I started graduate school and realized how stupid the argument that the ivory tower is a ‘religion’ truly is. Anyone who has never experienced graduate school could never really know how wrong that is, I suppose. Here is what graduate students (the next generation of scientists in any field) actually do: They hate their professors and think most of them are fossils holding up progress. They want nothing more than to tear down the old theories and put up new ones, with themselves in charge. Graduate students overflow with new theories and constantly dream up ways to disprove the pet theories of the icons in their department.

My peers and I are convinced we can advance our field (plasma physics) by approaching the whole foundation of the field in a different way, with more mathematical rigor and more computation, with fewer linearizations. Perhaps we’re right, or perhaps, much like my Freshman physics lab, when I actually do the work I’ll find out those old farts were actually right. Either way, every year, every generation, every single field is subject to this attack, by the young people who are actually going to become scientists.

But to imagine the graduate school as some kind of church where the Cardinals pass down the dogma to willing acolytes is asinine. It’s ludicrous. Totally ignorant of the reality. We fight that process tooth-and-nail every step of the way. And every once in a while we’re right, and we transform the science.

Usually, however, it turns out those old guys were young and smart once, rebels, and they turn out to have been right, and we just stand on their shoulders and move things forward the best we can.

Good post Corey although I would suggest that the situation you describe may vary by discipline. What you describe – the war of revolution in ideas waged by grad students – is not as applicable to the social sciences. The theoretical underpinnings of these fields often does take on the aroma of dogma. For example, I just came across a paper of the president of one association noting the lack of studies on a particular influence on modern society because the discipline’s basic paradigm discounted it.

I call a pig a “porcine animal” and lipstick on a pig is a “beautification project.” We can also call BS “fauna byproducts.” I can get my college degree and work in a lab and interpret my data with a heavy “bias” that conforms with my “political propensities,” i.e., that “homo sapiens” is a “malificent species” and that a deviation of 25 parts per million (.0025 percent) in an odorless colorless gas known as CO2 will cause the sea to rise 3 metres in one century, and that homo sapiens is the cause of this and should be stopped. And I can go to a scientific conference, where all like-minded homo sapiens and I can share a drink and feel that we are all jolly good saviors who are fighting greed and avarice in the name of humanism. And I can provide my scientific findings to newspaper columnists and political activists who will fight my fight for me. And I can go back to drinking with my buddies and feeling very virtous.

Just because you *think* that’s how science works doesn’t make it true. If it was that self serving we’d still be living in caves banging rocks together. What you describe sounds a lot more like religion, with the like minded interpreters of the Bible telling everyone what is.

I’d add “precision” and “accuracy’ to that list. In the vernacular, they are frequently used as if they were equivalent, where in scientific exchanges they have distinct and distinctly different meanings.

This is a stretch, but it’s October…..The Dodgers win 2 of the 10 World Series in the 80’s, 20% of them, more than any other team. Hypothesis: Dodgers are the greatest team in baseball history. Reality: After looking at the complete history of the MLB, the Yankees have won 27 of 105 World Series, 26%. The next best team has 10. Conclusion: The Yankees are the best team in baseball history. That’s my problem with Global warming, scientist are looking at a sampling of data to make their conclusions. For instance, in Houston 5 of our coolest years in the last 120 years were in the 1970’s. From that data, you could conclude that we are experiening Global Cooling.

Yes, and that sampling goes back more than 70 million years during which time the Earth has gone through several climate cycles. Based on the evidence from those cycles plus the well-established physics of CO2, we know that the current warming is anomalous and is due to anthropogenic CO2.

Even among scientist, I have unfortunately found out that it is a problem to assume that your colleagues have an understanding of the area of science being investigated. After all, it would not be research if fellow scientists already knew the answer.

Everything has error and bias. It cannot be eliminated which is why experiments must be replicated and the error estimated from the variance, i.e. standard deviation.

They know they have lost because we understand the lies and dismiss them, so now, they are trying to redefine the meanings of the words. We non-scientists are so simple-minded they have to tell us wht their words mean so that we will follow along like the sheeple they desparately want us to be.

How about ‘plain meaning’ of words. You know, words do have meanings that are generally understood. Arrogant scientists can laugh off the rest of us, just like we laugh off the egg-heads with the thick glasses and pocket protectors who infest labs and have no understanding of the real world but live in a theoretical world of self importance…

Science relies on precision and accuracy, not just in the data, but in the language that scientists use. Colloquialisms don’t necessarily help with communication, particularly for highly complex subjects.

Your derision towards scientists and use of stereotype and caricature to insult those who challenge your worldview says more about you than it does them.

We tried plain meanings. Theory didn’t mean “Guess” until the populace started using the word as a replacement for the word Guess. So now it’s up to the educated folks to invent a new word to mean what the old word meant, because the uneducated have misused the old word.

Or we can just keep on using the same word and let the population keep on misunderstanding what it means. Personally, I will not change my speech to suit a group that cannot be bothered to learn what words mean. My job has many duties, but English teacher is not among them. If a bunch of people want to believe in magic to the point where they ignore my demonstration of how the trick is performed, no change in nomenclature can help them.

There absolutely is a culture of using specialized language among scientists. It also exists among car mechanics, financial advisers, brew masters, and warehouse managers. The language exists to communicate precisely and facilitate exchange among peers. There is no doubt that in many cases the people whose job it is to communicate scientific findings to the general public need to do a better job overall, since many times those people are the scientists who don’t exactly have a big budget to hire PR folks. Maybe they can follow Eric’s blog more, he does a great job.

And many of the journalists I worked with did everything in school to avoid science if at all possible. I hate the blame the journalists – present company excluded, Eric – but the shoe may fit in this case.

Did you know the pediatricians don’t check vitamin D levels in children in the southern states; west and east? We just are exposed to too much sun down here. Only in the northern states, hehe. Sorry off topic Eric!

Of course I can guarantee you that if we made changes that actually counted, the majority of the people wanting to fight global warming would be screaming like mashed cats about real change. I’d bet that most would suddendly question the science as well.

If we have factual proof that we are the cause of global warming, let’s do something real about it and not just add money to the government coffers.

Here is where things shift out of the realm of the well-established science and into the realm of the poorly-defined politics. We do have factual proof that we are the cause of the recent changes in climate. However, we do not have a clear and consistent plan on what to do next. Many of the proposed schemes are either ill-posed (another science term meaning “has too many free parameters to adequately reflect the complexity of the problem” – see why we like these short, sesquipedalian terms?) or uneconomic or too long-term for most people to consider. And the obvious, short-term solutions (e.g., increase efficiencies, invest in nuclear power) are derided by the same folks who demand change.

Obviously, we need to add “models” to the list. A model is a mathematical construct that uses the known physics to predict a result. For example, F=GMm/r^2 is a model of how gravity works.

In science, models are judged by how well they match observations (“post-diction” or “ground truthing”) and by the resolution and reliability of their predictions. The climate models referenced in the link above all do well on the ground truthing and allow us to separate out the effects of each forcing as they interact. Climatology must use multi-step models because the climate system has a number of feedback loops (some positive, some negative) that can mask the importance of any single forcing.

John, I understand how models work. The point is that your “proof” is based on climate models which studies show are not accurate; therefore, the “proof” is not there.
.
I’d wager that as time goes on and the climate is studied more, we’ll discover that the forces driving climate don’t allign 100% to what we believe is the case now. Do you think we currently have the climate figured out 100%?

The point is that your “proof” is based on climate models which studies show are not accurate; therefore, the “proof” is not there.

You need to check the citation that you provided again; that is not what they claim. Indeed, they said that “As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics.”

And nobody in the climatology community is claiming that we have perfect models or that we understand everything about the climate. What they do claim (and can back up) is that the data we have is explained by the theory we now use (i.e., that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the observed increases in CO2 lead to the observed increases in global average temperature). We leave the strawmen others.

So, if, as JohnD says, “In science, a theory has the highest level of proof amassed; it is the simplest explanation that covers all of the known facts.” then what is the proper definition of a law? How are a law and a theory different?

A law is a mathematical description of a specific phenomenon. For example, we have both a Universal Law of Gravitation (F=GMm/r^2) and a theory of gravity. The law tells us what happens, and the theory tells us why it happened.

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: “What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?” The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Corey, well said “It is trivially EASY to go read that literature …It’s not MY fault you haven’t done so.” This is the basis of most blog “arguments”. Some people revel in their ignorance, they gather in crowds to congratulate each other on how little they know.

I think all of us science folks know that geologists need a lot of things. Mostly that they stop going on all those awesome field trips and stay stuck in a fluorescent lit office like the rest of us. Geologists are to science like the marketing majors are to business. They have all the fun, lol.

While reality is the final arbiter or all things perception is what counts when it comes to any possible actions a person might take in response to his or her interpretation of reality. Good communication is critical to at least give perceptions a better chance of aligning with reality.

Not when the group you are trying to communicate steadfastly refuses to listen to you, simply because you are a scientist. It’s like people insisting there’s such a thing as magic because you pulled a rabbit out of a hat, then plug their ears and go Lalalalalala while you explain how you really did it. No matter what words you use, communication requires the party you are trying to communicate with is listening to you.

Agreed Shockwave. I tried to carefully choose my words in crafting my post here. I said “better chance”. Depending on the audiance there could well not be a best or even a good chance of achieving clarity in any communication. Of course those who have the hate any government gene in their DNA will discount or dismiss any and all conclusions reached through use of those dollars no matter the level of truth in them. A big problem however going forward is that as the human population grows anyone’s problems become everyone’s problems. Collective action therefore becomes increasingly needed to deal with those problem. Free markets alone are not always the best way to address some of these problems.

Eric, I’d like to explain “theory” even further, so that we can get into the most critical meaning of the word.

In physics and astronomy (and possibly other fields), a theory is a set of hypothesis that are so established as to be nearly fact.
Now, by “established” I mean that they have:
1) Verified all collected data on a subject up to the creation of the theory
2) Have verified all data that has been collected SINCE the creation of the theory

And possibly most importantly:
3) A theory must PREDICT something. It must predict a data point or effect that could not have been known before the theory.

The key her is [i]a priori[/i] knowledge. Saying “all birds we’ve seen so far have wings. They’ve only been blue. If we find a red bird, it too will have wings” is NOT predictive, it’s taxonomy (trend analysis and statistics).

What is truly predictive is something like Quantum Mechanic’s prediction of the positron, or the Inflationary Big Bang’s prediction of the Cosmic Background Radiation, or General Relativity’s prediction of Frame Dragging, or Atomic Theory’s prediction of the Top Quark.

In each case, there was zero chance of anyone guessing those things. They came naturally out of the theories, and were then proven. THAT is what separates a theory from the rest of “scientific knowledge and research”.

When the laymen and public realize that when a scientist says “theory”, they are talking about something that is FAR FAR more proven than a “strong hunch”, and FAR FAR more verified than a “hypothesis”.

So, what did the Theory of Gravity predict? And no, I am not being sarcastic or challenging you. It’s just that all your examples are relativity/quantum/atomic, mostly things laymen will never get to actually “see”.

The phrase “Theory of Gravity” is something I’ve cringed at since I studied General Relativity and Freshman Physics years ago. It’s commonly used in an argument with a creationist but I never saw it used by actual physicists.

The two phrases I do actually see routinely are:

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity – This explains ‘why’ gravity happens and also predicts a lot of strange stuff that gravity (or more precisely, spacetime curvature) does when you move away from the everyday version of gravity we experience. This predicts not only the FORCE of gravity but other strange things (as was mentioned) such as Frame Dragging. It’s this theory that appeared to be violated by the ‘faster than light’ neutrinos and then turned out to be validated by that same data, once the mistake in the assumptions was realized. This is why this theory is so powerful, it just keeps standing up to scrutiny.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation – This is a very elementary statement that two masses are attracted to each other with a certain amount of force, which is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the separation distance between them. All this ‘law’ says is that if you assemble masses a certain way, the force between them will be a certain amount. There’s NO explanation here of why that is. And furthermore, under extreme circumstances it’s not even universally true. See Einstein above.

Next time someone flimflams you with ‘Theory of Gravity’ ask them which one they mean.

General Relativity predicted a few things, all of which have been verified.
1) Precession of Mercury’s orbit
2) Bending of light by a gravity well
3) Gravitational redshift (different than velocity based redshift)
4) Frame dragging of rotating gravitational objects
5) The geodetic effect (bending of spacetime by gravitational objects)

All 5 of of these things came directly from the equations on Relativity, and none of them could have been predicted beforehand. All 5 have since been verified. In fact, the last two have been hunted for decades. NASA designed specific research projects JUST to find those two things, because they are so critical to the verification of GR.

Also, the Big Bang theory requires General Relativity to be correct, since GE is the mathematical framework behind it. The Big Bang is the single most stable theory ever in the history of man (it’s stood up against more data, verifications, predictions, etc than any other). Things like the expansion of the Universe are allowed in GR (and in fact, is a stable, low energy solution, which means it might be “preferred”), but it is not exactly “predicted” by it.

Finally, things like the existence of black holes, the Kerr verification of spinning black holes, quasars, basically all of high energy astronomy requires GR to be correct. They are all verifications of aspects of the equations, without exactly being predictions.

That’s an impressive list. And I remember reading about the geodetic effect and how excited people were to finally be able to see it via experiment.

I was more curious about Gravity though, and what that theory predicted.

But one item in your write up intrigues me. The Big Bang theory is the “single most stable theory known to man”. It is a relatively new theory as theories go. Gravity is a much older theory and based on longevity, I would have thought that a theory that is older chronologically would also have had to withstand more tests?

“Gravity” is General Relativity. Unless you mean the larger sense of “gravity” as goes back to the Newtonian Theory. I’d have to think a bit about predictive items for that, but it (kinda) doesn’t matter, since it’s wrong Since it cannot stand up to new data, it must be pushed aside as false. Now, it works fine as a framework, but not as a proper Theory. I guess you need to be a bit more specific in what you want to know, and what you mean when you say “Gravity”.

As for older theories being more robust.
General Relativity has shown itself to be a robust theory, but ONLY under extreme situations. Huge mass, high acceleration, high velocity, etc. When you get to throwing a baseball, it’s useless. Yes, as far as we know, it’s still CORRECT, but it’s nearly impossible to collect any sort of data about it in our “mundane” world.

The Inflationary Big Bang (which actually dates back to the 50s or so in some form or other), not only has stood up to data in the extreme regime, but also in the “mundane” regime, and even the atomic/quantum regime. It uses bits of other, older theories (like Relativity) as tools to explain the Universe and it’s history. It uses thermodynamics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, relativity, and even Newtonian mechanics together. Part of what makes it so robust is that we can collect an enormous amount of data and toss it against the Big Bang over and over, and it stands up to all of it. EVERY galaxy has acted the same, EVERY star, EVERY photon. Not only that, but we have been collecting data for 15 billion years…since we can look back in time. So, we also know that the Big Bang not only describes the Universe we know NOW, but it describes it as it always has been, and why and how it changes.

When someone finds something anomalous (like dark matter, or dark energy), the Big Bang easily integrates it in, and uses it to predict even MORE stuff. A theory that is wrong cannot adapt to data that doesn’t fit. Newtonian gravity simply cannot in any way describe the precession of Mercury, but the Big Bang has no problem with Dark energy, or the dipole effect of the CBR, or even the ratio of matter to anti-matter. It just unfold another aspect of it’s framework, and poof, there’s the answer that deal with it.

Finally, the Big Bang can stand up to data that scales by many magnitudes. It can describe the solution of solar systems, it can describe galaxies, and then the whole Universe. It isn’t limited in scope like General Relativity, where you quickly find a regime where the data is just too hard to collect.

No, you are not blabbering on. Thank you! I just learned something today, which makes it a good day. When I went to school, there were 2 distinct branches – Newtonian physics and quantum physics. I had no idea, perhaps because I’ve never read or heard it stated out the way you and Corey did, that Newtonian gravity was now subsumed into relativity. So, that is awesome to know and helps me understand things a lot better.

This is one of the reasons Eric’s blog is one of my top sources for science news, btw. I always learn something.

Mo, one thing that often gets overlooked is that any new theory must be able to explain the observations that were included in the previous theory. For Relativity, it explains the Newtonian version of gravity quite nicely while extending the application into regions where Newton didn’t go. Thus, the old theory wasn’t wrong; it just wasn’t right enough.

One thing that gets overlooked in the Physics for Non-majors courses is that the predictions of quantum mechanics become indistinguishable from those for Newtonian physics as the size of the object gets large enough or its velocity gets slow enough (the “classical limit“). Thus, there never really were two branches of physics, just two different ways of describing what was going on depending on how many, fast, or big the items were.

That is fascinating. Or well, at least I find it fascinating to see the changes in how we teach things. Just in the time since I left school so many things have changed. I wonder how they teach these things in school now. I stopped physics in high school, but took college chemistry and biology so different disciplines.

@JohnD: Wow! I dropped by that link and am now more glad than ever that I never took calculus. The idea alone that infinity could be countable blows my mind. To me, it has always been uncountable and unending, in a way, no more of a number than zero.

Many in the sciences have worked hard to maintain a sort of superiority complex, I fear, using big words and then looking down on all the peons who don’t understand those words. Then they wonder why the public distrusts science and why so many kids don’t think they could hack it in a science or math field. Fortunately, there are folks out there, like the Science Cheerleaders, who are trying to help people see that none of this stuff is impossible to understand or do. The public can easily “get it” if it’s explained in a way they can understand. Not everyone can (or should) pursue math and science academically, but everyone can understand how it operates if it’s expressed the right way, and that in turn makes them less averse to pursuing it or to funding it with their tax dollars. Win-win.

Have you ever picked up and read a senior- or graduate-level mathematics or physics textbook? You are flat-out wrong about why scientists use complex language. The simple answer is quite different: Complex ideas require concise and specific language to properly describe.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that, after spending a decade learning to function in a specific scientific discipline (a good portion of which can sometimes feel like vocabulary lessons, as I can personally attest), the practitioners in that field use those same (very precise) words when trying to describe what they do to the general public.

I had the experience in a philosophy class as an math/physics undergraduate of having an argument in class about abortion, and I said “a subset of that group probably feels differently” and ended up arguing about what ‘subset’ means. This is a pretty straightforward word to look up in the dictionary. Just because I learned its mathematical meaning doesn’t mean I shouldn’t use it!

Complex language use by specialists, and their reluctance to resort to less-precise words to communicate ideas, is not a bad thing. What appalls me is how many people refused to make a small investment in improving their vocabulary so they can understand the language used to describe subjects that interest them. Shameful, really.

“The Green’s identities for the laplacian lead directly to the maximum principle and to Dirichlet’s principle about maximizing the energy. The Green’s function is a kind of universal solution for harmonic functions in a domain. All other harmonic functions can be expressed in terms of it. Combined with the method of reflection, the Green’s function leads in a very direct way to the solution of boundary problems in special geometries. George Green was interested in the new phenomena of electricity and magnetism in the early 19th century.”

Now, I remember when I started this class and this book that we spent the first two or three weeks just learning all the vocabulary of the subject, and dispelling errors in interpretation of what various definitions meant in mathematics. After investing that time, I was able to read a paragraph like that and understand what Strauss was trying to say.

When my dear old mother asked me what I was studying… what was I supposed to tell her? “I’m studying math… mom.” When my father said “explain this to me so I can understand it” I tried, but the first thing I did is ask “do you know what a function is?” because I had to get the language straightened out first. At least he wanted to try to understand.

There just isn’t another word other than ‘function’ or ‘domain’ for what I’m trying to say, or what Strauss is trying to say. Just like there isn’t really another word for ‘theory’ in the context of science.

Instead of accusing me of having a superiority complex, why don’t you just learn the language of what interests you? I made that time investment, and it’s insulting to expect me to stop using the language I learned just because you’re lazy.

Not everyone has the time to study all the terminology. You are a dedicated scientist, you studied it all. That’s good. You need it on a daily basis. For those of us who are interested, even a little, that may not be possible. I deliberately look for books that are written in a matter geared toward the layperson when I buy books on physics. Most of those books are recommended by the CERN Courier. Their bookshelf section is a constant joy to me.

I’ll never forget the first time I actually understood the difference between the general and special theories of relativity – no scientific jargon needed. It was actually in a philosophy class.

I’m not lazy because I don’t take the time to spend years learning the specific terminology. We can’t all be experts and scientists. But that does not preclude us from being interested nor does it mean we can’t ask questions. Some of what scientists say will make sense and some won’t; and what doesn’t make sense to laypeople will not be accepted as easily. That’s just the way our brains work.

Lastly, I’m pretty sure Ann wasn’t saying that you specifically had a superiority complex. But I am pretty sure that you called her lazy. That was not very nice. Some people in the scientific community do have superiority complexes and some people are just lazy and don’t care to learn. That doesn’t mean you have a superiority complex and it doesn’t mean Ann is lazy.

To put what Corey said in a different context – would you expect a car mechanic to describe how an engine works without using the words “carburetor” or “spark plug”? Should he ask for “a wrench about so big” or for “a 9/16 inch box end”?

Those are specific terms that have well-defined meanings that are used by a group in order to convey information quickly and clearly. But, unless you spend some time learning the language, you’ll be lost. That isn’t the mechanic’s fault; it is yours.

The same is true in science. We use these terms specifically because they help us communicate with each other. If you do not understand them, then ask what they mean. But don’t expect us to dumb things down. The world is a complex place and needs precise language to describe it.

Actually, that is a good point and a great analogy for me personally as one of my best friends happens to be a mechanic. And yes, I ask him questions all the time. What is that? What does it do? Why is that dangerous?

On the other hand, I haven’t gone out and found a primer for terms mechanics use, I just ask my friend what it is or what it means. He’s really good at finding ways to describe things so that I can understand or helping with analogies that make it all make more sense to me.

To me, it sounded like Corey was saying “Why should we have to explain things to you? Just go read up on all these terms we throw around.”

I don’t want you to dumb things down for us; I want you to help elevate us all, even knowing that we’ll never get to your level. That’s what learning is all about.

To me, it sounded like Corey was saying “Why should we have to explain things to you? Just go read up on all these terms we throw around.”</I.

What Corey actually said was "There are some things that cannot be said except in the exacting language of the field”. For example, I can tell you that there are different types of infinity, but cannot explain to you why they exist unless you are willing to learn enough math to follow along.

The general public will always regard a theory as something unproven. Nobody talks about the theory of gravity, it is a law. My suggestion to scientists: instead of using the word theory, use the words “proven fact” and then everyone will have a crystal clear idea of what you are saying.

Sorry, but I cannot disagree more. Firstly, I personally still call gravity a theory and I am no scientist. Secondly, JohnD used the theory of gravity and the law of gravity to illustrate his definitions of law and theory earlier in this thread. Thirdly, one of the biggest obstacles, at least in my opinion, that scientists have to face with lay people, even interested ones like me, is that too much certainty tends to have the effect of making us less likely to “buy-in” to what is said. Telling someone that something is a “proven fact” is likely to make them want to challenge it. Part of the reason for that, as I see it, is that most people, scientists and lay people alike, understand that our knowledge is always changing and expanding and our view of the world/cosmos changes and expands as we gain that knowledge. Therefore, what we “know” as “proven fact” today might be changed tomorrow. I say use the word theory, educate people to understand, and accept that some will not understand.

The bulk of the commenters who think they “can change public perception” are the basis of the problem to begin with. You’ve set up an insulated and elitist system and then wonder why the plebeian masses don’t understand you. Problem is those plebeian masses vote and control the purse strings for your favorite angel counting experiments. Then you wail and criticize the masses as being unwashed, ignorant and unworthy. You want respect? EARN it.

The problem is you, not the masses. YOU must change how you choose to communicate.

“The problem is you, not the masses. YOU must change how you choose to communicate.”
————————–
Um, that was kind of the point of that chart, don’t you think? Telling the science folks how their words are perceived by the genpop and recommending some changes to bridge the gap.

Hmm, Does Eric have bias in his reporting? The same article he refers to also says:
“The current crisis in journalism has also resulted in fewer experienced reporters with the requisite expertise, which leads to coverage that can be inept and misleading.”

We are lucky in Houston that we have a diligent science reporter in the chronicle, but this is rare.

We’re a dying breed, that’s for sure. I have a long talk I give about the waning number of science reporters, and how this is somewhat offset by the rise of a large number of well written science blogs. The problem with the latter is that they don’t readily reach beyond a core audience already interested in science.

You really are lucky to have Eric. We are lucky to have him. Inept and misleading reporting of science news does damage to the entire scientific community and, at least in my opinion, has helped to foster a lack of trust in science that is very concerning.

This is specifically for Eric. I just wanted to say thank you. Discussions like these are why I follow you and your blog from half the country away. I always know I’ll learn something. Today has been a particularly good day in that I learned several things from this discussion – and not all of them about physics. Keep up the good work.

re: “We must all learn to communicate a little better if we’re to understand this world we live in and make the best possible use of it.”

Guess who’s got your back.

“In recognition of his exceptional work as a climate communicator, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has selected Gavin Schmidt as the recipient of its inaugural Climate Communications Prize…. “Gavin has worked tirelessly to bring the work of scientists in understanding our changing world to both the public debate as well as to the broader scientific community.””

re: “I’ve lost count of the number of times I have seen a scientific theory (often evolution) derided for being “only a theory.””

While unfamiliarity with the myriad denotations — never mind the legion of connotations — of a word, expression, or phrase by various disciplines & undisciplines, we suspect something more sinister afoot with the herd here.

“An analysis team led by Anthony Watts has shown that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations are ranked in NOAA classification 4 or 5, indicating a temperature uncertainties greater than 2C or 5C, respectively. This uncertainty is large compared to the analyses of global warming, which estimate the warming of 0.64 ±0.13 C over the period 1956 to 2005. The quality problem suggests that the instruments used to measure the warming may not be sufficiently accurate to yield a meaningful number. We perform two analyses on the USHCN stations ranked by the team. A simple slope analysis shows no statistically significant disparity between stations ranked “OK” (NOAA scale of 1, 2, and 3) and stations ranked as “poor”(NOAA scale of 4 and 5). This method suffers from uneven sampling of the United States land area, but it illustrates important properties of the data. A more detailed temperature reconstruction is then performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method. From this analysis we conclude that the difference in temperature rate of rise between poor stations and OK stations is –0.014 ±0.028C per century. The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two sets suggests that networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have large absolute uncertainties.”